The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While on a pure nose count this would be around "no consensus" territory, one "keep" argument is based entirely upon the now-removed "appearances in professional leagues" criterion, and one upon stating sources exist without specifying where those might be found. Given those factors, the outcome tilts to "delete". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gam Han-sol[edit]

Gam Han-sol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet GNG/SPORTSPEOPLE as Gam has not met any individual notability. Completely unreferenced and hasn't won championships/any notable titles. Wikipedia isn't a database for non-notable athletes. Mentioned in passing at most within Korean sources with the rest of Bucheon FC, and zero results for English google news. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. 130 appearances (and counting) in Korean football, so possibly something out there. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @GiantSnowman: The article on Korean Wikipedia seems to have some sources. Mucube (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I did find three sources for the article in Korean: this article, this other article, and the half-broken Google-cached version of another article seem to have a lot of information on Gam Han-sol. Mucube (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The first site looks to be a personal blog; the second is not significant (brief transfer news); the third is probably OK. Overall not enough to show notability. GiantSnowman 10:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not seeing much in Korean sources, lots of hits for a female golfer for some reaosn. Oaktree b (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Mucube. In addition to his sources, I found other Korean sources as well. Player with ongoing career who has made over 100 appearances in the fully professional Korean second tier. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Das osmnezz: Could you list out the sources you found so we can take a look at them? Mucube (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:FPL, he has made many appearances in the FPL. Meets WP:BIO --Assyrtiko (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Those advocating Keep will have to provide additional reliable sources as only one of those offered is considered to be acceptable by Wikipedia standards. Again, Wikipedia no longer confers notabiity to athetes based on the number of appearances they've made.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Sportsworldi.com has an article on Gam that reads a bit like a press release from his club, but there is a byline with a reporter named. However, the footballist.co.kr article mentioned above is the same word-for-word which I think proves that it is just a club press release. I'm not seeing anything else that looks like significant coverage from a reliable source. Jogurney (talk) 06:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above, article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Eccellenza Campania. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pol. San Giorgio a Cremano[edit]

Pol. San Giorgio a Cremano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally marked as WP:PROD, delisted. An amateur club with no professional football history that no longer exists, the article has not been updated since years. Fails WP:GNG. Angelo (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Angelo (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Eccellenza Campania as possible search term, does not appear to be independently notable. GiantSnowman 20:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments You said they don't exist, but they seem to exist, their website is still live. Even know they are not updating it, but are they still playing football this year? I see last season here, [1], I don't see any matches for this season know. They played in Italy's Serie D [2]. They also played in the Coppa Italia per [3], San Giorgio 1926 is the WP:COMMONNAME. So forgive me, under the old rules they qualify for an article. Do they still qualify. And a club from 1926, I assume there is a lot of history that can be compiled. @GiantSnowman:, There are still a lot of links to go through, don't count your chickens mate. Govvy (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  where is the significant coverage? GiantSnowman 09:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The club is no longer existing. I could not find any formal announcement, but they were relegated from Serie D last season and did not submit any application to play football this season. See [4] - no mention of 2022-2023 football here (and this is possibly the largest Italian website for amateur football, so I would consider it rather reliable). The website was not updated since 2018, they just abandoned it - remember we are talking of amateur football here, so there is very little significant coverage to be expected in general. "1926" does not necessarily mean the club was founded in 1926, it is in fact a typical thing for Italian clubs to mention of a year as the one when the "football history" in a city had started. Playing a single Serie D season, and gaining little to no coverage for it, so much so that I could not even find an article formally confirming the fact they left Italian football for good (and no, they are not, I checked on all football leagues of Campania), is quite telling to me. --Angelo (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or, in the alternative, redirect to Eccellenza Campania as otherwise non-notable TEAM. MurrayGreshler (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A few ideas have surfaced in this discussion which might be resolved through editing, so I'd recommend continuing this in article talk or on the appropriate WikiProject and seeing if the synthesis and content fork issues can be resolved otherwise. If not, no prejudice against a renomination in some time. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Shakira's musical work[edit]

Analysis of Shakira's musical work (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Okay, this is a very well-sourced, well written article. Unfortunately, it is WP:SYNTH. The article is not about the analysis of Shakira's work, it IS an analysis of her work. Therefore it is WP:OR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems fine, it's well sourced and talks about the aspects of her work in the sources. Oaktree b (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Oaktree b: except that a lot of it is duplicated content from elsewhere, which is the reason why a lot of it is well-sourced and well-written – see my comment below. Richard3120 (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Duplicated as in Copyright violation, or duplication as in it appears in other articles on wiki? The editors always use their judgement in what to include in an article. It's only really OR if they conclude something different than what an article says or if they go out and do the research themselves. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I have is that everything you say above is not incorrect, however, the editor has added their own editorial judgement to much of the article, which makes it WP:OR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed – for example, the first line of the "Recognitions" section starts, "According to some media and the general public, Shakira is considered 'the most influential Latin female artist of all time'"... no, the source doesn't say that, it calls her the most influential artist in the world right now, and that's according to only one publication, and no mention of the public at all. And in any case, what does this have to do with the analysis of her musical work? Richard3120 (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a rewrite, not a reason for deleting the entire article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, which is why I haven't voted to delete. It was just an example of the OR that the nominator has highlighted, which is prevalent with this editor's articles, along with addition of irrelevant material. Richard3120 (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepI searched various sources for information, everything has its respective source that talks about her music and her musical work, the analysis is made by magazines such as Billboard, Rolling Stone critics among other media outlets, in addition to the fact that Shakira has received all kinds of recognition due to her music work. AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: AlexanderShakifan29 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
• Comment: the big problem with this editor's creations is that they are creating a lot of what I believe are WP:CONTENTFORKs and repetition of information already found elsewhere. For example, the section Analysis of Shakira's musical work#Decade of 2000 is largely a copy and paste of Laundry Service#Composition and Oral Fixation, Vol. 2#Music and lyrics. Other parts are replicated in Cultural impact of Shakira. This could be a worthwhile article, but the article creator pumps out an enormous amount of Shakira content at such a rate it's very difficult to find the time to sit down and go through everything and see what has been duplicated over several of their articles. Richard3120 (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I see nothing wrong with duplicating small chunks of analysis into a larger one that combines them, that's really what wiki is for. I doubt there's been much peer-reviewed analysis of her work in scholarly journals the article creator can use as sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, but personally I don't think it should be wholesale copy and pastes. Richard3120 (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm a little concerned about overlap between this article and another they worked on, Cultural impact of Shakira. I remember that reading that one and being a little shocked that so much analysis had gone into studying a pop music singer. I'm not arguing for Delete for either article right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Liz: Just reading the table of contents of that article makes my head hurt. But this overlap is exactly my concern as well. I do think there are some good articles in there trying to get out, but they are overwhelming at the moment and really need to be trimmed down and split into distinct articles. And then there is Shakira impersonator (which I definitely think should be merged elsewhere), Shakira Fandom... Richard3120 (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, irredeemably OR. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this overlapping, OR-laden synthesis. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, The article seems fine, and it uses verified sources to support its information, I don't think it should be deleted, just corrected or edited following some of the suggestions of the comments above mine. Juan12353 (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC) — Juan12353 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmirŞah 21:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, although it needs quite a bit of editing; much needs clarification and additional citations. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there aren't strong policy arguments to keep or delete beyond claiming it is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR without specifics. There seems to be some consensus that the article is well-sourced which indicates to me a No consensus result unless some examples or SYNTH or OR can be presented.

I did make a comment in this discussion but I don't think it makes me INVOLVED as I wasn't arguing for the Keep or Delete of this article just stating that I saw some overlap between articles on this subject. But, just in case that anyone has misgivings, I'll let another admin actually close this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adrián Ramos de la Torre[edit]

Adrián Ramos de la Torre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about former footballer who had a very brief career in the second level of Mexican football. Unlike his namesake that is a Colombian international, there is no significant coverage of this footballer at all - just database entries and match reports - so it comprehensively fails WP:GNG. PROD was removed without providing any indication that SPORTBASIC could be met. Jogurney (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Angelo (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This is complex. And we truly have a lack of consensus, not a kick the can down the road and re-nominate n/c either. Well thought out input from established editors has been roughly matched by those taking a different POV, equally relatively policy based. A discussion on spinning out or refining the content similarly did not attain consensus. The community appears divided on this.

NB: I have disregarded the nom and their !votes as, aside from the GS issue, much was not policy based. There was similarly no merit to any of the "speedy" !votes as these didn't meet the criteria.

NB2: going to explicitly say that you do not need to come to me if you believe this merits DRV I have re-read this discussion three times and do not see any consensus. Star Mississippi 03:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nazi monuments in Canada[edit]

List of Nazi monuments in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reposting a malformed AfD request, see below. 162 etc. (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a useless list containing only 3 items, and a POV pusher. I suggest to merge it to the article Canadian war memorials. The three items should get added to the said article, and this page should become a redirect. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 20:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC) The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on edits and pages related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed. GizzyCatBella🍁 08:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• But those aren’t Canadian War memorials. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Slava Ukraini Heroyam Slava 123 so you propose to merge or delete? GizzyCatBella🍁 20:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to a more suitable list, change the tile, or delete. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 20:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close or Keep. This is a notable topic that satisfied WP:GNG and also WP:NLIST. Of course it's a difficult topic, and it's a topic that has indeed be something where misinformation is pushed, but we should not avoid difficult topics. This has been discussed extensively at Talk:List_of_Nazi_monuments_in_Canada but we have not reached consensus, discussion has included if the title is best, and also deletion and also merging.

We should keep this due to the significant coverage in reliable sources. Examples:

1. https://www.thenation.com/article/world/canada-nazi-monuments-antisemitism/
2. https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/progressalberta/pages/2693/attachments/original/1594062960/Per_Anders_Rudling_-_Nationalist_Monuments_in_Canada.pdf?1594062960
3. https://jacobin.com/2022/11/roman-shukhevych-monument-canada-nazi-ukrainian-ultranationalism

I note the points made on the talk page about if it is fair to call these monuments to Nazis and Nazi collaborators, so for the avoidance of doubt:

1. Two of these are monuments to the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician). Yes indeed, the SS, a Nazi organisation
2. One of these is a monument to Roman Shukhevych, his collaboration with Nazis is well document on his page.

WP:NLIST is satisfied as many sources deal with these collectively, some as mentioned above, others clearly do, I don't think I need to list them.

In reply to the POV pushing that is being accused, what is the point of view that is being pushed? Is it that these are Nazi memorials? That is very well documented in reliable sources. I see why this is a difficult topic and at a difficult time, I am sympathetic, but there is no original research happening here. Canada has Nazi memorials and it's hitting the news, being a notable topic, and an appropriate one for Wikipedia.

Edit: procedural close because renaming discussion is ongoing on the talk page and appears to solve the complaints of the nominator to their satisfaction "Honestly, if I saw this comment before submitting the AFD, maybe I would not have submitted it." CT55555 (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • @CT55555:, Have you read this article? Calling them Nazi monuments is oversimplified and a needless POV pusher. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 20:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But the renaming discussion was closed a procedural close. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 16:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this closes, you can reopen it (which was confirmed in the closing notes). CT55555 (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But I agree with Michael. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 16:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This "list" only has three entries (two of which have Wikipedia articles), and I agree with the proposer that the title is needlessly NPOV. 162 etc. (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the following reasons:

1. This is a WP:POVFORK WP:CONTENTFORK. The content included to the 3-item list is already covered on a number of other pages. (see comment by Tristario about this below)
2. The listing is simply not supported by the best available and presumably scholarly source, i.e. the chapter from the book by Per Anders Rudling (see here) who is by no means a pro-Ukrainian author (rather the opposite based on our page about him). According to the book, none of the memorials commemorate specifically "Nazi" or 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician), contrary to the page under discussion. In particular, the memorial in Edmonton was established by Ukrainian War Veterans’ Society in Edmonton, not a Nazi or SS organization. Further, this monument was erected by three different Ukrainian nationalist organizations and dedicated to several different military formations of Ukrainian nationalists during WW II. Same is about the second monument ("Glory to UPA"): it is dedicated to several different military formations of Ukrainian nationalists during WW II, according to the book.
3. The "Nazi monuments", as defined in the title, would normally mean either monuments built by Nazi (e.g. Nazi architecture) or monuments commemorating Nazism (with swastikas,etc.). In this case, the text on Memorials say to "Those who died for the freedom of Ukraine". The opinion by vandals and some others that all Ukrainian veterans commemorated by these memorials at the cemeteries were Nazi is just that, an opinion, and hardly a reasonable one (it was incited from Russian embassy, according to sources). Calling them "Nazi monuments" in the title, in WP voice, essentially as a matter of fact and describing them as such on the page I think is "inherently POV". All or most sources describe this as a controversy, not a fact. My very best wishes (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The initial version of this page had four examples, one was French. You started a merge discussion asking that the French example be removed. So it's only about Ukraine because you pushed the article in that direction. This seems unfair. CT55555 (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I did not start an official "merge" discussion, which would be an RfC. I started a section on talk to clarify opinions. My very best wishes (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The french example was removed because it wasn't a monument Tristario (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I think you elaborated the point about the content fork in your comment below already.My very best wishes (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the French example gets added back, that won’t solve the POV problem. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 08:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:My_very_best_wishes, Changing what was said after people already replied is inconsistent with the behavioural guidelines at WP:TALK#REPLIED Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes. Please put back what you said before, then strikethrough if you want to take it back, then put in the new comments. It's very unfair on those of us who have replied, to retroactively change what you said. CT55555(talk) 04:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My change did not affect anything related to responses, i.e. the use of French source and note about "merge" discussion. Yes, I can strike through my entire previous comment and write a new one (if you insist), but I do not think it will be more readable. That would not be helpful. My very best wishes (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you change (expand) the original comment, it makes the replies to it seem like they neglected some points. I should not have to insist that you follow guidelines in the context of you now obviously knowing you have strayed from them. CT55555(talk) 04:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I added point #2. If you want to address it, please do it here. My very best wishes (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're still completely focussed on changing the name, which is a surmountable problem and not a reason to delete. Check out WP:ATD.

Nonetheless, one source not saying something, is not the say as the source rejecting something.

We're in a weird spot here with you continuing to imply that a monument to a Waffen-SS group is not a Nazi monument, even weirder when reliable sources concur. CT55five55(talk) 05:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not distort what I said. Yes, of course Waffen-SS were worst of the Nazi. I am only saying that according to the scholarly source (see link above), each of two monuments was dedicated to members of several different Ukrainian military units, only one which was 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician). Therefore, just calling all of them "Nazi" is misleading. My very best wishes (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as this is a notable issue in Canada (see sources) but I’m open to adjusting the title. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, every subject in the list is individually notable (all three of them). That's why we have such pages. But I do not think this is a legitimate list as a POV fork. If it was a regular page, if it was titled differently and written differently, as I suggested on talk, then maybe. But in the present state I think it better be deleted.My very best wishes (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, this is a major issue in Canada (for years). Here what Ottawa Citizen daily writes about it - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD is policy and directs us clearly that If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting CT55555 (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The content of this article is already covered by the articles 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician), Roman Shukhevych statue (Edmonton) and St. Volodymyr Ukrainian Cemetery. I don't see any good reasons why we need a separate three entry list of these monuments/memorials - not every collection of three items needs to be made into a separate article listing them on wikipedia - WP:CONTENTFORK also applies here. There has also been a great deal of difficulty of choosing a WP:NPOV name for this article - Some people want the name "Nazi monuments", but there is only one source, which is a biased source and arguable an opinion piece, which (without attribution or scarequotes, and per WP:HEADLINES in the body of the article) refers to them directly as "nazi monuments". There is also this source, which quotes a historian that pushes back against the straightout "Nazi" label. In terms of the wording used by sources, they typically say nazi collaborators (or some variant) when talking about the nazi connection, but there's a lot of variety in how the sources in the article label these monuments, and they usually quote different viewpoints, making it hard to decide on a label. The nature of making a list like this where you group items like this together is that you have to make a judgement on what the best collective description is - and that naturally brings in WP:NPOV issues, which is a difficulty that isn't necessary to deal with in the first place, since I think this falls under WP:CONTENTFORK--Tristario (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Lists, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment User:My_very_best_wishes has made a sensible suggestion which does open the door to a compromise solution, perhaps suggesting the AFD is a bit hasty. CT55555 (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Note - Proposal of the move is live at the same time - proposed by the same user. [5] GizzyCatBella🍁 22:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:FORUMSHOPing is a poor way to reach consensus on anything. CT55555 (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. CT55555 (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:FORK of 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician), Roman Shukhevych statue (Edmonton) and St. Volodymyr Ukrainian Cemetery and not actually a list article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've read WP:FORK and cannot see how it applies to any wikipedia article, it's about people plagiarising the encyclopaedia off the encyclopaedia. CT55555 (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kherson Oblast (Russia). It was deleted as a POV fork (and also per crystalball but POV fork is what care about in this discussion). -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 08:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The guideline WP:POVFORK states that a PV Fork is a clearly defined thing that occurs when a disagreement is unresolved and then someone creates an article. That didn't happen here. This guideline is being quoted incorrectly. I didn't fork this out of anything, I was just writing an article about a journalist and learned about these monuments, saw there was no article and created one. Please, let's quote the right policy, which is WP:GNG and WP:NLIST and discuss it in relation to them. CT55555 (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think a lot of people when they say WP:FORK or WP:POVFORK actually mean WP:CONTENTFORK, which is what I linked to in my vote, and which does apply here. WP:POVFORK also says that's how they "generally arise" - it doesn't say that's how POVFORKS always arise. Tristario (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't like to make so many comments, but the arguments to delete have shifted, so this seems necessary. WP:CONTENTFORKING is not inherently bad or good, it's just a thing that happens. What needs to be avoid is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, as they duplicate content. Of course this is a list, and some items do have their own article, but that is quite normal. Nowhere on wikipedia deals with these types of monuments collectively, so this is not a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. CT55555 (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This article just includes information about each monument, which is something already covered in other articles, so it is redundant. Tristario (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Some clarity is needed here. Is the proposal:
  • to delete the article because it doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NLIST, or
  • to delete the article because there's a protracted dispute over its title? Because WP:LOUSYTITLE is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem.

The arguments at the talk page are chiefly about NPOV in the title, which is of course a perfectly valid concern. But this article was nominated for AFD in the middle of the second move proposal by the AFD nominator, and the nominator has made it clear both here and at the article talk page that a move to their preferred title is acceptable.

So if this article is deleted WP:GNG and/or WP:NLIST, then it's also deleted under an alternative title, such as List of Ukrainian Insurgent Army monuments in Canada, or Ukrainian World War II memorials in Canada, correct? Storchy (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The main arguments for the deletion are WP:CONTENTFORK (which people often equate or mix up with WP:FORK or WP:POVFORK) or WP:POVFORK, and that it isn't a good list (which arguably relates to WP:NLIST). The issues over the title are related to the content forking, because creating an (unnecessary) article like this where you need to create a generalized label creates NPOV difficulties, and it can be argued the existence of the article pushes a particular POV. I prefer deletion over a name change (for reasons in my above comment), but people are allowed to have preferences for multiple options, that doesn't necessarily undermine their arguments. I assume if it's deleted it's deleted under any name. Tristario (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break[edit]

• Speedy delete  Because the encyclopedia shouldn’t demonize national groups. Shukhevych was not a Nazi and the article about him doesn’t define him as one, and the Canadian organizations associated with the monument are not Nazi organizations. The members of the Galicia Division, one of the German foreign legions, were not Nazis and the article about the unit does not define them or the unit as such, and neither is St. Michael’s church and cemetery in Edmonton Nazi organizations. Nor was the Ukrainian Insurgent Army a Nazi military, and the article about it doesn’t define it as such, nor are St. Volodymyr cathedral and cemetery in Oakville Nazi. Reliable sources do not call any of these things “Nazi.” The existence of this list violates WP:LIBEL, and the topic falls within the purview of WP:ACDS as falling under Eastern European subjects. —Michael Z. 15:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So why WP:RS call these controversial statutes 'Nazi' monuments in Canada? (page 126) Are we supposed to follow WP:RS or the opinion of a few Wikipedians? Tell me all you folks because I'm lost. 🙂 - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good article in the Time of Israel (Russia’s ‘denazification’ lie and the whitewash of Roman Shukhevych) about the problem today’s Ukraine is facing, the problem, that if not addressed, will always haunt Ukraine. (always). - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t say Shukhevych was a Nazi or his memorial is Nazi. Stop wasting our time.  —Michael Z. 17:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does it? Please cite the page number and quote the text. Google won’t show me the content, and the only search result it returns is a quote of a scare quote: “Russia tweets about ‘Nazi’ monuments in Canada amid ongoing concerns over political interference.”

It appears to be in the chapter by Per A. Rudling. As I’ve told you before, Rudling has a WP:FRINGE bias on these topics, having characterized the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association as “ultranationalist lobbies” in Ball and Rudling 2015, “The Underbelly of Canadian Multiculturalism.”  —Michael Z. 16:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I’m wasting your time now Mzajac 🙂 ? I’m sorry. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are wasting everyone’s time. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 17:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I’m. Too bad WP:RS call those monuments Nazi ... oops, here is another one --> Canada’s Nazi Monuments 🤔 - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CT55555 by the way. This is probably a good title for our article --> [6] - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has the same problems as the previous one. It’s needlessly pushing a POV and there’s no any reason to keep this list. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 17:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another Golinkin opinion piece in the Nation labelling Ukrainians Nazis is not a reliable source. He also wrote a vague but nasty screed about Azov battalion/regiment/movement that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. —Michael Z. 19:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

.. and @Mzajac you need to stop calling Rudling fringe okay? You know which our policy apply here, don’t you? Get familiar with this letter please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That letter defends only his one article.[7] He doesn’t call anything “Nazi” in that piece and he doesn’t slag the UCC and UCCLA as “ultranationalist” in it. He does that elsewhere, and no one familiar with the subject is defending those statements and they are fringe.

But stop trying to muddy the waters. You still haven’t demonstrated that Rudling calls these “Nazi monuments.” I asked you to quote and cite, but you’re still defending your statement and link that shows nothing.  —Michael Z. 19:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per CT55555. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after splitting out St. Michael’s Cemetery, Edmonton as a separate stub - there's enough sourcing here to show its notability. Each of the entries is notable in its own right and we should end up with an article on each, but they are not "Nazi monuments", and grouping them under such a concept is badly justified WP:SYNTH. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Elmidae You say above that they are not Nazi monuments. Is this your opinion based on WP:OR or you have a source that precisely says that those aren’t Nazi monuments? If you do have such source, could you demonstrate that to us? This question is also directed to user Thriley, who established is !vote on your comment by simply saying per Elmidae.

  PS. - I’ll throw here one random source that actually says those are Nazi monuments to start the challenge - here you go. the article in Canadian weekly Georgia Straight titled How did a monument to a Nazi SS division end up being erected in Canada?- GizzyCatBella🍁 07:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a) Requiring me to prove a negative now? b) We'd need a preponderance of sources classifying this group as such, which I'm not seeing yet. c) The recent additions of the Draža Mihailović statue and Mount Pétain muddy the waters still further by trying to shoehorn in a Chetnik and a mountain. Are we aiming for "List of things in Canada that are vaguely related to Nazism" then? Good luck with defending that list ambit. - This is a WP:SYNTH exercise, and not made more acceptable by being emotionally agreeable to most of us. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not requiring you, I’m just asking. So you don’t have a single source that claims that those monuments aren’t Nazi. (Correct?) Thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella and Elmidae: Hi. In this discussion, there are suggestion(s) to rename the article as list Ukrainian monuments in Canada. As a halfway solution, I suggest we rename it to Sri Lankan monuments. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is that supposed to be funny for what? What's the purpose of your comment I was pinged to? - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t get it.🤷‍♀️ - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella and Elmidae: What I am trying to say is, as long as there are no sources saying "those aren't Sri Lankan monuments, the title "(list of) Sri Lankan monuments in Canada" should be considered as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oh i see, okay. thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella: that was supposed to be humor. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

👍 - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments (maybe lean to delete) The title of the article seems wrong somehow, although irksome as a subject there is validity to it. I read through the article and agree there is a large portion of content-forking here. The St. Volodymyr Ukrainian Cemetery article seems to largely focus what is already on this page, which is directly a content-fork issue at play. The Roman Shukhevych statue (Edmonton) is more balanced with this article. I am not sure what my verdict is, whether to keep or delete. But it does feel like the article is partly working as a news service here to highlight a problem. And wikipedia is not a news service. Govvy (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am not sure yet if such a list should exist though there does seems to be a controversy over these monuments specifically, for example the Guardian has an article on the monuments and refers to a "monument dedicated to Nazi soldiers" and another to Shukhevych as a Nazi collaborator as well as the controversy they have resulted in.[8] Mellk (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a valid and legitimate list article containing three notable entries about related topics. Perhaps the title can be improved. Cullen328 (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the list, recognizing that two of the three entries already have articles and the third could probably have its own. But in exchange, I would recommend expanding the existing article Nazism in the Americas to include the situation in Canada, in which reference to these monuments can be made, but give better context for why they exist. Some of the existing text on the list could be incorporated there. --Masem (t) 19:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the vast majority of Wikipedia's list articles are comprised entirely (or almost entirely) of entries which have separate articles. In fact, many times having an article is a requirement for inclusion, so I'm not seeing where having separate articles is a policy-based rationale for deletion of this list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem Yeah, not a bad idea. Let’s see what the nominator has to say about it. Hey @Slava Ukraini Heroyam Slava 123 do you mind if someone (maybe you?) expanded the existing article Nazism in the Americas to include the situation in Canada instead? - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's less about policy (though the NPOV concerns listed above are of concern), and more about a more rational organization of information which then eliminates any NPOV/FORK concern. Each monument is individually notable so each can have a page, that's hopefully of no question. But instead of a list to include re-summaries of the individual articles, it seems far better to use an existing article to talk about Nazism in Canada in broad terms, and then include mention of these monuments as part of that. An extremely brief Google Scholar search on "Nazism Canada" shows numerous quality sources, so that can be built out in the suggested article. (I am surprised there's not separate ones for the US and Mexico, and I would anticipate if they had invididual articles, an article "Nazism in Canada" would also be appropriate. However, that is a separate issue). Masem (t) 20:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - what about 'List of Waffen-SS monuments'? 'Nazi' is arguably an ambigous and unhelpful term, largely functioning as a slur. Saying that X and Y military units were units of Waffen-SS should be possible to verify, whether their soldiers and commanders were thouroughly National Socialists in terms of ideology and philosophy is of course much more complex to verify (and hotly contended). Also, the listing could potentially be expanded to North America or the Americas in general, if there is material for such an expansion. --Soman (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If we can all see that these are SS monuments (indeed they are), why is anyone objecting to us calling them Nazi monuments. Indeed Nazi is used as a slur, but when we're talking about actual Nazis...

  That said, List of Waffen-SS monuments is also correct, so I'd accept it. I think we all just need to contemplate why we're OK to label something "SS" but not "Nazi" when the SS the Nazi's paramilitary organisation, the Waffen-SS was their armed branch - the people who fought in the war for the Nazis. Our own article on the SS has the word Nazi in it exactly 100 times. Who are we all trying to not offend and why? CT55555 (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Elmidae Change title to Ukrainian Monuments in Canada - add holodomor monuments et al. The grouping of these three statues (which have articles that do/could stand alone) creates an article in controversy and without NPOV. I agree that the grouping simplifies a complex issue as to push POV. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you point to a policy that requires Wikipedia articles to not be "controversial", as opposed to NPOV, which policy requires "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." One can point to numerous articles which are written from a NPOV and yet are considered "controversial" by some editors.
  By POV you are presumably referring to the description of these monuments as being "Nazi monuments", but there is more than sufficient evidence to refer to the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) as a Nazi organization. Consider that the Waffen-SS was the military branch of the SS, one of the most notorious of Nazi organizations, and they fought at the direction of SS commanders. The Waffen-SS was not part of the Wehrmacht, the regular German Army, and it did not come under their supervision. It was a Nazi organization. That some, most, or all of its ordinary members were not members of the Party, I do not doubt -- for that matter, most members of the SA stormtroopers were not members of the Nazi Party, and yet that is universally, and correctly, considered to be a Nazi organization.
  That the Gallicia Division was a Nazi organization cannot be gainsaid, so there is no NPOV problem in calling monuments to its soldiers "Nazi monuments". (Although I, personally, would have no problem with the article being moved to List of monuments to Nazi collaborators in Canada.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The essay that establishes that we don't want articles that are strictly criticism - with certain exemptions - is WP:CRITS. That allows for articles like Criticism of Christianity where each subtopic is treated in an NPOV fashion (trying to present the article from both sides). The difficulty here is that there's primarily only negative criticism related to these monuments, though obviously we can't create a false balance either under NPOV. The better way is through the idea of grouping their discussion as a whole into a larger article describing, in a neutral way, the history of Nazism in Canada. Masem (t) 22:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for that information, but it actually isn't really to the point. Flibbertigibbets objected to the article as being "in controversy", which is not the same thing as being entirely critical of the subject matter. As you say, we should never insist on false balance, but if there are RS's which have positive things to say on these monuments, then we should certainly include that information, but simply because someone or some group finds an article to be "controversial" is not a policy-based reason for deletion. In any case, the primary complaint in this discussion appears to be the description of the monuments as "Nazi monuments", which, as I've pointed out above, is very firmly supported by the facts, and is not "controversial" when examined neutrally. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I was speaking to the "article in controversy" which is akin to "a journalist becoming the story." In my reading, the salient point of the article relates to Ukraine not about Nazi monuments in Canada, they are Ukrainian monuments in Canada (for better or worse) along with any Holodomor monuments that might be in Canada. The details in the body can cover controversy, factual, and/or perceptual changes in history. A parallel might be found in the "Lee Barracks at U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York (1962)" where the barracks simply are (independent from an analysis on Lee). There was a call in the article for Ukrainians within Canada to become more introspective about their history. The article has balance but (in my opinion) the title does not - the article is about Ukrainian monuments in Canada. (a cursory search indicates there are quite a few) Flibbertigibbets (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand where you're coming from, but folding in another monument just in order to re-name the article seems like a false move to me. The three monuments are a natural grouping because they are dedicated to a Nazi military unit, which is unusual and controversial in a country such as Canada, one of the anti-Nazi allies in WWII. There is (or shouldn't be) any controversy about a memorial to the tragic loss of life in the Holodomor, so adding it to the article is not adding like to like, instead it's an attempt to provide "cover" for the controversial nature of the other monuments.

  I've no objection to finding another title for the article, as long as the title is accurate and makes entirely clear the nature of the monuments themselves and to whom they are dedicated. I'm not in favor, however, of whitewashing the very reason for the three monuments existing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• :Gainsaying, as per some of my other posts on this, the whole Waffen SS was ruled and categorised as Nazi's in the Nuremberg trials, not in 1943 when the regiment was formed in Ukraine, by volunteers, opposing the USSR, promised to only be tasked with that part of the eastern front, and before the full scale of the crimes and action the Hitler regime were culpable of, context and knowledge is key. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:BCFF:F9AF:F090:C065 (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC) 30/500[reply]

• Merge to Nazism in the Americas. I like GizzyCatBella's proposal. I am not convinced that this article's subjects reach WP:LISTCRIT on their own merits, but I agree that the content would be notable in a general article on the topic. We must be careful not to oversimplify or offend on what is evidently a very contentious topic. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC) 30/500[reply]

• I would be OK with that merger, but I have my doubts that the nom will agree to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with GizzyCatBella and Cullen328. The subject is notable and coverage by sources is adequate, but the title needs improvement to comply with WP:NPOVTITLE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:LISTN it meets our guidelines. Lightburst (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• keep with current title, it passes WP:LISTN. If there are concerns similar to "there are only three items in a list article", then change the title to "Nazi monuments in Canada" or similar, as the latter passes WP:GNG as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• keep passes WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. It seems much of the argument is about the article name, which should be discussed at the article talk page. "Nazi monuments in Canada" as suggested above seems most appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  On seconds thoughts "Nazi memorials in Canada" would be better. Some of the monuments are not to Nazis but they still contain memorials to Nazis. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, rename, and expand - I'm convinced by the argument of User:Beyond My Ken that this is not a fork of the sorts discussed above.

The title definitely needs fixing, but as noted above, WP:LOUSYTITLE is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem.

The proposal to merge with Nazism in the Americas isn't quite appropriate, because this article isn't actually about Nazism, but about monuments to their collaborators, why they're still there, and about their defence mostly by people who aren't even faintly Nazi, but see the monuments as vital to commemorating important aspects of national and military history. There are analogies to be made with the Confederate monuments debates in the US, and the Statue of Edward Colston in the UK: they're monuments to people who did both good and evil things with their lives, and the debates for and against their removal are notable by Wikipedia standards.

The list was narrowly focused on monuments to Ukrainians, so I've added a paragraph each on the statue of Draža Mihailović (Serbian) and the mountain named for Pétain (French). But the list could be greatly expanded, at least to North America (as there are monuments to Nazis all over the US, see [9] for example). It could even be expanded to a list of monuments to Nazi collaborators worldwide. Storchy (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian monuments are present in Canada because a significant percentage of the population identify as Ukranians.

Four holodomor monuments mentioned here;

https://education.holodomor.ca/introduction/holodomor-monuments/

As a suggestion, add the above statues to the article, rename the article to "Ukrainian memorials in Canada" and let the readers decide.

Another consideration is the context of the current war - An interest exists in setting the narrative via the press; which has more to do with the weighting and omission of facts which are true and the context of the time.. The same concern is mentioned here;

https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2018/08/13/shukhevych-monument-canada-oun-upa/ Flibbertigibbets (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's already an article List of Holodomor memorials and monuments, which could do with better referencing. I'll try to get to that later today. Storchy (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that our task, as editors of an encyclopaedia is to present verifiable information. The idea that we should let readers reach their own conclusions doesn't work well for encyclopedias. We should not let Russia's propaganda efforts nor the probably-widespread sympathy for Ukrainians right now influence how we write about verifiable information.

Also we should be talking about if this article meets the notability threshold, not what it should be called. CT55555(talk) 14:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The, prewar, article I provided from "Radio Canada International" said this; "Competing narratives and quest for legitimacy." Denazification is a stated justification for war Casus belli that looks like Total war or perhaps a genocide of another flavor (we will see). The presentation of facts cannot set a narrative. As you said, "We should not let Russia's propaganda efforts nor the probably-widespread sympathy for Ukrainians right now influence how we write about verifiable information." We need, to provide balance there is quite a bit of factual and historic complexity to a topic presented out of context. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please add to the article whatever complexity you think has been missed. CT55555(talk) 15:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into a "context tag" so readers unfamiliar with this complex subject would know that there is more complexity involved. The complexity of Ukrainian history and current events resides well outside the scope of a narrowly titled article. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename most of the sources use "Nazi" i.e. they're not all directly linked to Nazism, so there must be a better title for this. The expansions made recently further highlight that there is sufficient scope to pass WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looking at WP:LISTN, and this article seems to meet it. Perhaps the name should be changed, but it's no cause for deletion. Surmountable problem. Those pontificating on "Russian propaganda" and avoiding controversy should gain a greater understanding of Wikipedia:Purpose. Wikipedia is not a tool for fighting a propaganda war, or simply recording uncontested claims - it's an encyclopedia. Carlp941 (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Though it should be expanded and probably a new title is needed. Mellk (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename per above; Article scope has merit On second thought, Delete list per Elmidae as WP:SYNTH and expand each monument as its own article individually. The current title is an incredibly shameful violation of NPOV and should not have been move-warred back to. SMDH. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^(c/t) 02:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC) !vote changed - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^(c/t) 06:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Calling monuments commemorating a Waffen-SS unit "Nazi" is "shameful"? I'm not seeing it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So GhostOfDanGurney now, after you changed your !vote from keep to delete following the petite challenge by Beyond My Ken (see comment above) do you mind telling us what’s incredibly shameful about calling the monuments commemorating soldiers of the Nazi Party's Schutzstaffel (Waffen SS) division - Nazis? Because I'm also lost here. Oh...and one more side question that might be useful for the closer of this RfC.. what made you change your mind? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The monuments clearly say “to those who fought for the freedom of Ukraine”. Please stop spreading russian propaganda. This are NOT Nazi monuments. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 10:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's enough WP:RS stating that they are Nazi monuments and grouping them together. I'm skeptical that the list is canonical enough to satisfy WP:LISTCRIT and that it does not, as some have suggested above, contradict WP:POVFORK, since there are equally-reliable sources that disagree with this labelling. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC) 30/500[reply]

I think there is an important difference between a source being silent on a topic and disagreeing with it. Are there any reliable sources saying these are not Nazi monuments? CT55555(talk) 13:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all three of the sources you cite in the beginning of this AfD describe views that disagree with this characterisation (particularly your second one, pg 115-120). This is why I would vastly prefer it being in an article, since greater context can be provided. The only subject on this list with a separate article does describe some level of disagreement about how the Edmonton statue should be labeled, and I think that model is the way forward. This is why I don't think it's a canonical enough list for WP:LISTCRIT.

Having said that, not sure if I should be posting here given what Gizzy has stated at the bottom of the AfD. Forgive me if I have broken some kind of rule. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)30/500[reply]

GizzyCatBella, Questioning everyone who disagrees with you isn't going to help your cause. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^(c/t) 13:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostOfDanGurney Asking two editors a question to clarify their comment isn’t bludgeoning and I’m not asking everyone. Also falsely accusing someone of bludgeoning is considered incivil and should be avoided. So you can’t or don’t want to answer I understand. Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put words in my mouth. Some of your comments towards the nominator could be seen as antagonizing, which is not at all civil. Please don't jump to conclusions. No one is obligated to answer you (as written in WP:BLUDGEON). - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^(c/t) 03:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostOfDanGurney - As far as I'm concerned, everything is clear thanks to your replies. You don't have to explain anything anymore. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Elmidae. Thriley (talk) 07:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. List articles risk bloating as has happened here (e.g. adding a street in West Chezzetcook which contains the name Petain] and for propagation of the initial story line we could thank the Russian embassy in Ottawa. Individual bits might be due elsewhere but as noted elsewhere some already are. See also the history of Monuments in the United States to Nazi collaborators. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: there's a controversy in Canada about memorials to collaborators with Nazi Germany during WWII, as reflected by reliable sources; the article meets WP:LISTN. I don't see how the page is a WP:CONTENTFORK; rather it's a reverse "fork" as it brings related content together in a coherent fashion. The issues with naming could be dealt with via WP:RM. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - NLIST requires that the topic of a list be "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", which this one has been, as demonstrated above. I don't see how the concerns about SYNTH, NPOV, or CONTENTFORK apply here, and any concerns about "Russian propaganda" are completely irrelevant and should be disregarded. Hatman31 (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename. The Ukrainian collaborationist monuments are clearly notable as a group, but I am concerned with the addition of the French and Serbian stuff. The currently title is unacceptably ambiguous and misleading (since no members of the Nazi Party are anywhere to be found in the article). Since "Nazi collaborator" is not well defined, the page should be renamed and refocused specifically on the Ukrainian monuments that have generated controversy. This also justifies the use of news sources, which, frankly, are not acceptable in general for defining defining a monument as Nazi or to a Nazi collaborator. Srnec (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets LISTN. [10] , [11] and so on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- None of the content actually refers to Nazis, rather to those who for their own national reasons chose to ally themselves with the Germans in WWII:
  • General Petain no doubt sought to protect France from the worst of German occupation.
  • A Serb general chose to fight for one view of what Yugoslavia should be, something other than that of the ultimately victorious communists.
  • Various Ukrainians, whose objective was presumably a country independent of the Soviet Union.

This is a controversial topic, as can be seen from how Russian propaganda is portraying the present democratically-elected Ukrainian government. It is difficult at this distance in time to discern the motives of those who collaborated with the Germans in WWII. How about List of monuments in Canada to those allied to Germany in World War II. German allies are likely to have been nationalists, rather than those adopting full Nazi ideology. I dislike having to defend even allies of those guilty of genocide, but we should be wary of guilt merely by association. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:LISTN. Would not object to renaming. Not everybody who collaborated with Germany was a Nazi, but many of them did participate in genocide. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep though the scope and title may need refining (I don't think this needs to be a list). Many sources covering this. There are even academic sources talking about Ukrainian nationalist/Nazi collaborationist memorials in Canada:

• Rudling, Per A. (2011). "Multiculturalism, memory, and ritualization: Ukrainian nationalist monuments in Edmonton, Alberta". Nationalities Papers. 39 (5). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 733–768. doi:10.1080/00905992.2011.599375. ISSN 0090-5992.
• Rudling, Per A. (2020). "Long-Distance Nationalism: Ukrainian Monuments and Historical Memory in Multicultural Canada". Public Memory in the Context of Transnational Migration and Displacement. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-41329-3_4. ISBN 978-3-030-41328-6. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment leaning towards Delete This really is a poorly written article, should be deleted and put as a disambiguation for each one of the memorials. Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Being "poorly written" is not a legitimate policy-based reason for deletion. See WP:ATD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 100%, Rename 100% rewrite still required, and for the users above, please consider... You join an organisation that aligns with your long-term deisres FREEDOM, subsequent to this you find out information that goes against your values, leave get caught and shot, subsequeet rulings call the whole organisation Nazi's, should the original Ukrainians all be categorised as Nazi collaberators?? I would say this blanket approach only meets the need of the current Russain Federation and not the truth or balanced or fair.2404:4408:638C:5E00:BCFF:F9AF:F090:C065 (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC) 30/500[reply]

  — 2404:4408:638C:5E00:BCFF:F9AF:F090:C065 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. CT55555(talk) 04:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ::It does not negate my point totally on topic, and FYI I have made 1,000's of edits on both a disused account and on auto assigned IP's which automatically change on every start-up down here in NZ 2404:4408:638C:5E00:9180:E43:9970:A5D4 (talk) 11:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC) The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on edits and pages related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed. GizzyCatBella🍁 12:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Note also the WP:CANVASSING here User_talk:Volunteer_Marek#Hello_VM,_can_I_recruit_your_help CT55555(talk) 14:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifications of the nominator[edit]

Second convenience break[edit]

• Delete or prune and rename. The current title should be read as "list of monuments which someone including us associates with Nazis", which is an invalid way to name articles. An example is Petain Mountain, named for Phillipe Petain when he was a WWI hero. Later Petain blackened his own name by collaborating with the Nazis during WWII, but that doesn't turn the mountain into a "Nazi monument". It remained a mountain named for a WWI hero, even though the later indirect link to Nazis was a good reason to rename it. Zero^talk 02:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article passes GNG and others. It is sourced article and should be kept on wikipedia.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 02:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

District X[edit]

District X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional location with no evidence of notability, mixed with some information about a short lived comic book series, which has a reception section, but the references seem not very reliable. Maybe redirect to some list of Marvel comic locations, hmmm, can't find it, Features of the Marvel Universe then? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Problem is, we've got other things like Ismael Ortega redirecting to here--I just un-redirected it, but this indicates that redirecting this article is more complicated than that, as prior redirections like Ortegas had not actually merged content, so they were suboptimal to begin with. Not saying this is a clear keep or anything--I haven't looked for sourcing, as I'm not a comic book afficionado--but that multiple problems should be dealt with consistently. Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• How about this paper? It seems dedicated to a significant part to District X. Daranios (talk) 11:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While I am not sure about the sources currently used in the reception section one way or another, I think the topic is notable after all, based on the paper linked above, this CBR article dedicated to the topic, as well as several others with shorter treatments. (I am assuming that CBR.com is a reliable secondary source with regard to comics.) So while the current state is not great, I think it can be improved through normal editing. Daranios (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Daranios At minimum, we need to rewrite this from an article about a fictional location with a section about the series into an article about a series with a section about a location... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Piotrus: I am not sure I agree. First, I don't feel like this is "an article about a fictional location with a section about the series", but rather those two closely related sub-topics stand equally side-by-side, both in the lead and the article proper. (I have tried to make this even more clear.) I think this is reflected in the newly found secondary sources, which talk about both. If you feel that from an encyclopedic point of view, the real thing (the comic book series) should be treated before the fictional place, sure, go ahead and WP:FIXIT. It should only mean swapping the sections and slightly rephrasing lead sentences. From the point of view of the reader, I tend towards the current order being more understandable, as the location extends beyond the comic series, but especially historically it has appeared earlier than the comic series. Daranios (talk) 11:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Daranios The thing is I am not seeing these sources talk sufficienty about the location to meet WP:SIGCOV. There is some discussion of the series. As usual, it's almost all plot summary. Did you notice any statements about the significance/importance of either the location or the series? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Piotrus: "District X became a playground for X-writers and X-artists to develop ideas that hadn’t been the focus of previous X-Men books." "As in The Wire and Morrison and Leon’s first look into the Mutant Town, District X treats its characters with compassion." "While the comic setting was a poignant development, it hasn’t had the cultural impact of the TV show because the allegory isn’t as powerful as the detail-focused magnification of real tragedy." "Bizarre Spin-Offs That No One Expected...District X Was A Mutant Focused Crime Procedural...this story and the focus on Ortega's personal issues seemed a weird direction to go in a book that was ostensibly about mutants." "In contrast to a long-standing claim to ‘realism’ in Marvel’s use of New York City, this article argues that the real Alphabet City – at the time a contested and rapidly gentrifying neighbourhood – is nowhere to be found in District X, replaced by a voyeuristic fabrication, a sensationalistic node of concentration for middle-class fears about urban decline and blight amid prosperity and contemporary discourses about drugs, crime and homelessness that reproduces long-standing cultural representations of the neighbourhood as different and inferior." "this aspect of ‘Mutant Town’ has been remarked by fandom: ‘Morrison turned mutants into a subculture […] He gave them their own Chinatown, their own Little Italy, and made it a point to show that mutants […] were more than just mutant paramilitary teams", "District X starts off as a relatively grounded police procedural....the strand of social realism that is introduced in the early issues is increasingly interwoven with much thicker strands of action cinema and television, science fiction and superhero comics. ... the series’ inability to divorce itself from the trappings and tropes of less realistic genres leads it astray and helps cement its failures of identity.", etc. Daranios (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Except the last one, SIGCOV is an issue, but I concur deletion would be suboptimal compared to a rewrite about the comic book series. And sadly, the sources are more about the series than the location, which is seen as part of the series, at least that's my reading. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per comments from Jclemens and Daranios on the sources added. BOZ (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While the location seems like fancruft, the comic itself seems potentially notable, although I am unsure about the reliability of the reception sources. If kept, it can be reoriented to be about the series, not the location. If I can get confirmation that the refs for the series are in fact unreliable, I may !vote delete. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the comments that were made by @Jclemens:, @Daranios:, and @BOZ:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ConceiveAbilities[edit]

ConceiveAbilities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the sources are press releases or self-published. Does not appear to pass WP:ORG. ~TPW 18:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ConceiveAbilities has only received brief mentions from secondary sources. That's not enough. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 19:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Coverage in sources is only trivial. ProofRobust 20:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Everything I find is affiliated (including interviews and quotes with the founder talking about her own organization), from social media, from a blog, from the organization's own public relations, or an inclusion of a publication by the organization in a bibliography. There is a list of top 8 surrogacy centers that might have come close, but the write-up of this organization is a barely reworded version of their own PR. Nothing that passes WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Largoplazo (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails NCORP. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) JoelleJay (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Dyer[edit]

Joyce Dyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extremely obvious WP:CONNECTION issues, as well as WP:NOTABILITY (no secondary coverage that I can find). It was previously nominated and kept based on now-outdated guidelines. An anonymous username, not my real name 17:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. An anonymous username, not my real name 17:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Ohio. Skynxnex (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She's definitely in gscholar, has a published NYT opinion piece [13] I'm also seeing a significant number of reviews of her work:

Reviewed Work: The Awakening: A Novel of Beginnings by Joyce Dyer Review by: Denise D. Knight, American Literary Realism, 1870-1910 Vol. 27, No. 2 (Winter, 1995), pp. 88-89 (2 pages).

BOOKMARKS: Writers and events of regional interest Literary women reclaim their culture The Roanoke Times, May 10, 1998 (multi-paragraph review of a book she edited)

Reviewed Work: Bloodroot: Reflections on Place by Appalachian Women Writers by Joyce Dyer Review by: Lynda Ann Ewen, Journal of Appalachian Studies Vol. 4, No. 2 (Fall 1998), pp. 340-342 (3 pages)

Reviewed Work: Bloodroot: Reflections on Place by Appalachian Women Writers by Joyce Dyer, Review by: Nancy Carol Joyner NWSA Journal Vol. 11, No. 3, Appalachia and the South: Place, Gender, Pedagogy (Autumn, 1999), pp. 195-197 (3 pages)

Reviewed Work: Goosetown: Reconstructing an Akron Neighborhood by Joyce Dyer Review by: Sharon Hatfield, Appalachian Journal Vol. 39, No. 1/2 (Fall 2011/Winter 2012), pp. 171-172 (2 pages).

Book Talk: Plot thickens in 'Evil Under the Tuscan Sun' by the USA Today network has a multi-paragraph review.

and just some general coverage Professor at Hiram compiles essays into a book, Akron Beacon Journal is a multi-paragraph story about her and her editing a book.

(and there are more reviews). Looks like the article does need some cleanup and reference work but the above and with a significant body of published works seems to meet WP:NACADEMIC #1? Skynxnex (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree that the previous AfD did not adequately provide justification for notability. But I think there are enough published book reviews (now added to the article) for WP:AUTHOR. And although much of the text of the article is currently unsourced, we could use this Encyclopedia.com article as a source. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:AUTHOR#3 - my initial online search finds WP:SECONDARY coverage of some of her work, e.g. 2 reviews from Kirkus Reviews (for Bloodroot and Pursuing John Brown) and the journal Appalachian Heritage (Bloodroot). At the WP Library, the first page of results include the review "From Curlers to Chainsaws: Women and Their Machines, by Joyce Dyer" By: Pesses, Michael W., Women's studies, Vol. 47, Issue 6 (via EBSCOhost), reviews of Bloodroot in the NWSA Journal (via JSTOR), the Journal of Appalachian Studies (via JSTOR) and Appalachian Journal (via JSTOR), a review of Goosetown in Appalachian Heritage (via JSTOR), a review of The Awakening in American Literary Realism (via JSTOR), an article about her and her book "Author traces father's life in 'Gum-Dipped'" in Rubber & Plastics News (via EBSCOhost) and a brief biographical entry in the Writer's Directory via Gale. On the second page of results, she also has an entry in the Directory of American Scholars (via Gale. These sources can be used to help further develop the article and suggest further sources likely WP:NEXIST. Beccaynr (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing this. I suppose I am not terribly well-versed in the specific notability criteria for authors. Should I close this, or do you believe this discussion has any further value? An anonymous username, not my real name 19:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, An anonymous username, not my real name, and while allowing the discussion to remain open for a bit could allow more editors to become aware of the opportunity to conduct more research and develop the article, if you also agree that notability now appears supported, then it looks like a speedy keep is supported. And thank you for bringing this article up for discussion! Beccaynr (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to International Council of Museums. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Transport and Communication Museums[edit]

International Association of Transport and Communication Museums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yes it exists; The IATCM is a very small "trade group or association" that holds a conference periodically and has a handful of members. In my opinion this group is not notable. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with International Council of Museums. It's certainly a real thing with members and conferences but not noted - anywhere I can find. It would presumably only be a line on the other page also. JMWt (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Redirect as above. This article contains minimal information, and its only reference is the organization's own website. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remorse ASCII[edit]

Remorse ASCII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small hobby group of ASCII "artists" - the article is unsourced, fan essay, and was not notable at the time of authorship. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources for this item. Nothing at in fact. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reliable sources found. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not for things that artists make up on their own unless there are others who think those things are important. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. I was unable to find any reliable references. Fifthapril (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (wishing keep) Sigh. wish I could just vote keep but probably merge/redirect to ACiD Productions is the best that's possible since other that archives of their work at like textfiles and other scene sites, I was able to just find a master's thesis: Like City Lights, Receding: ANSi Artwork and the Digital Underground, 1985-2000 which mentions the group:

ACiD spun off an ASCII art subdivision called Remorse in December of 1994. and By this time a substantial proportion of warez trading had shifted to the Internet, which preferred the platform-independence of ASCII art over Codepage 437. In this it is notable that ACiD's Remorse ASCII division appeared approximately at the beginning of this trend and continued through to the end of ACiD as a driving force in computer art.

So... if this is deleted I'll try to add some more to the primary page. Skynxnex (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raso, Arizona[edit]

Raso, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Even the place names books call this a rail spot, and they are the only sources of info besides GNIS and old topos, the latter showing a passing siding and nothing else. It's not a notable settlement or anything else. Mangoe (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can you point to any guidelines governing notability of places like this? I'm not seeing them, but suspect we're not writing on a blank slate here. My inclination, when dealing with something historical, is to keep if we can find sufficient sources to write an article -- I don't worry very much about self-promotion when we're talking about ghost towns and the like. But there's probably a standard that provides more guidance than that... TheOtherBob 17:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that WP:GEOLAND is the primary subject-specific WP:Notability guideline covering this. Skynxnex (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should also read WP:GNIS to understand the problems with the principal source for this article. Mangoe (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Rail sidings are not populated places, no notable community. If there is anything historic worth mentioning about this location, it should be in another article such as History of the Southern Pacific. MB 17:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I find stray mentions of the place in books, but nothing that indicates it was a notable settlement historically (or at least outside of similar abandoned sidings in aggregate) and it certainly ain't now. Doesn't meet GEOLAND. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 14:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Americans in Nevada[edit]

Asian Americans in Nevada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No huge clustering of asian americans, no significance of Asian Americans in Nevada. Sungodtemple (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is importance of Asian Americans in Nevada. It is one of five states with more than 10% Asians, [14]. They are important community in Nevada [15] [16] [17] [18]. I do not want to delete, because they are important group in Nevada. We must not delete whole races of people. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. A quick Google search finds countless articles published by reliable sources on the community's significance. An anonymous username, not my real name 20:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 378,672 isn’t a small number. There is a Filipino, Indian and Chinese community in Las Vegas.[19][20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.8.146.215 (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep - with no prejudice against the merge proposal being discussed further on the article's talk page. Closing this AfD as there is no consensus to delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Chosen One (trope)[edit]

The Chosen One (trope) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly just a WP:DICDEF with an example farm attached. No real difference with hero, surely any relevant information can be incorporated there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep or merge with hero aside form the list it has some pretty valuable info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2006toyotacorrola (talk • contribs) 15:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think the entry paragraph already goes beyond a pure definition. (Just compare it to the actual dictionary definition.) The secondary sources do not support "No real difference with hero", as one already says, it "is a very specific trope in F/SF" (rooted in religion). (You can have a group of heroes, but only one Chosen One, can't you?) Then, the trope is currently not discussed at hero at all. If "surely any relevant information can be incorporated there", why are we leading a deletion discussion, rather than a merge discussion? As we already have at least two relevant secondary sources, Fantasy Magazine and Tor.com (which do discuss the pros and cons of the trope, so they go beyond a dictionary definition, too), notability is established, and the article could be expanded. WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP and notability is not based on an article's current status. Granted, the trope is so ubiquitous that few sources stop to talk about the Chosen One as such (like this PhD thesis, p. 94-59 does) before going into a discussion of how it is applied in specific works (and such sources are numerous). But that's all the more reason we should provide info on the basic concept here on Wikipedia for the interested reader. Daranios (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, Chosen Ones can be multiple quite easily, which is another reason why this article's title and body content is misleading at best.

  Deletion discussion is because merge discussions can also be done at AfD. That is perfectly normal Wikipedia policy, if the article is believed to be totally unencyclopedic in its current state.

  WP:SCHOLARSHIP states that thesis papers are highly dubious as reliable sources as they are often subject to little scrutiny. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Zxcvbnm: "this article's title and body content is misleading at best" is a new argument. The term is what it is (except if you want to claim WP:NEOLOGISM somehow). Would you care to elaborate where the article is misleading despite being mostly sourced?

And what was your reason for deletion again? I thought it might be "5. Contentforks", which explicitely says it's a reason for deletion "unless a merger or redirect is appropriate". Then deletion policy says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page" and lists merging as one way that editing can improve an article percieved as too short. So while a merge can sometimes be the outcome of a deletion discussion in opposition to the nomination, those Wikipedia policies I have seen say the opposite of "merge discussions can also be done at AfD" (and for good reasons).

I would be really curious if there are existing examples of a group of Chosen Ones in fiction or religion. Daranios (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios Chosen people? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Interesting! I'd say it's not really the same trope, though. Daranios (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios Not the same but highly related. Chosen one vs chosen group. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand/improve. This is a well-worn and well-documented literary and cultural trope. BD2412 T 16:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is not TVTropes. Something must have discussion in RS as an individual concept, not just be a trope. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In addition to the RS already mentioned above, this one also discusses the concept for two paragraphs. Daranios (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to hero and remove the list. There is a way to cover this on an encyclopedia, and I agree with the nominator that it isn't a TV tropes style list. There is a good paragraph to be written about a hero and their destiny. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• merge Weak keep. It's a bit complicated. We have one decent paragraph that might be merged to hero, hero's journey or list of stock characters, and a fancrufty list that needs to be deleted per WP:IPC. The question is, whether the trope of chosen one warrants a stand-alone article or a merger? The term is used but I am having trouble locating a clear definition, which leads me to suspsect "chosen one" is just a synonym for hero, and therefore, a merge would be best. According to [21]and [22], the only difference between "chosen one" and "hero" from "hero's journey" is that the chosen one doesn't have a choice in becoming a hero. I just don't see the need to split this trope into a separate article unless more SIGCOV sourcing is found, a merge. Regarding where to merge, I think the best place right now is the chosen one entry in the table at List of stock characters. Our articles on hero and hero's journey don't mention this term, although they probably should. PS. To be clear, I am not far from leaning weak keep as well. If this is expanded (text-wise, the unrefeenced IPC-violating list needs to go), this might be ok as stand-alone article. But if all we have is the current one paragraph, the table I link to will be a valid merge target. PPS. Last thought: the current article also suffers from no scholarly sources, the best we have are two online "trade journals", aka minor sf websites/magazines, The Nerd Daily and Fantasy Magazine (the former article by Anita Olsen Stoebakk, the latter article authored by K. Tempest Bradford; tentatively I'd call the second one reliable, but I have my doubts about the first one). PPPS. I didn't notice Tor's article ([23]). With two reliable and SIGCOV meeting sources, I guess this is a borderline keep for this trope, also when we factor in some other sources found, like the two paragraphs in the book Daranios mentioned (I didn't verify, no access through TF site, can anyone link it if it's in IA or another place that's accessible without $$$?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: The Routledge Companion to Imaginary Worlds is also avialable on Google books, though I could see the relevant pages at some times but not others. Daranios (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not voting because I created it but ... Chosen One is very common in contemporary storytelling (practically Wikipedia:BLUE). The article probably falls under Wikipedia:DELETIONNOTCLEANUP. I don't think Chosen One is the same thing as Hero because there are plenty of heroes that aren't destined, chosen or supernatural. For example Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) and Dorothy (Wizard of Oz) fit into Hero's journey but they're not the chosen one (afaik). Chosen One is different from Chosen people because Chosen People is a religious term. Chosen One is influenced by religion but it's not necessarily religious. Chosen One could be a sub-topic of hero or hero's journey. No problem with merging into a section in either of those articles, but it's not the same exact concept. My intention in creating this article was to have a place where Chosen One is discussed, since the list Chosen one doesn't do that. The void century (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here's another source that has a whole chapter on The Chosen One as a trope. Young Adult Fantasy Fiction - Conventions, Originality, Reproducibility

  The void century (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You pretty much admitted that "Chosen One" is a subgroup of heroes, ones who are picked by destiny. It can definitely be mentioned in a paragraph or section without requiring a whole article. I don't see the type of Chosen One who is not actually a hero. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Subgroup is not the same as no real difference with hero. Is young adult fiction the same as fiction? You need to demonstrate that The Chosen One (trope) is not notable enough to have a standalone article. The void century (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It sure *seems* like this should have an article, but the discussion indicates that there is not SIGCOV in reliable sources about the topic. Those sources that have been presented have been meticulously debunked. I think I'd consider this an "anti-salt" delete, if and when enough sources are discovered upon which to build an NPOV article of sufficient length to be of encyclopedic value, we should welcome its recreation. As stands the article is a dictionary definition and belongs on a sister project. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technomancy[edit]

Technomancy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a non-notable neologism that fails WP:NEO. I tried to find a way to merge it into magic in fiction but couldn't even find sufficient sources for that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to draft. The idea of magic interacting with technology is reasonably well-established, but this is clearly not in mainspace article shape. BD2412 T 16:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The idea might be established, but Wikipedia isn't TVTropes and not the place for indiscriminate original research. If the idea is not discussed in a detailed fashion then it's probably not fit to be anywhere on Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is important and makes a cool article. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:ILIKEIT for why that isn't a valid argument in deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a Google Scholar search shows it widely used in academic literature. There may well be ways to merge this with similar concepts, but outright deletion is almost certainly not warranted. I'll note that 2 of the 3 literary examples that immediately came to mind when reading the article title are covered appropriately in the article, although not with the depth I think is likely supported by RS'es. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Without proof that it is widely discussed in reliable sources, a keep vote holds no weight really, and is outright speculation at best. Many things pop up in Google searches, much of it unusable on Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:BEFORE for why the failure to find and engage with these uses is your problem, not mine. That is, if you can't click on the scholar link above and see that my statement is accurate, that is your problem, not mine. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jclemens Seriously, no, and you know better. Requirement to provide sources, per WP:V, is on editors who want to keep the article. Anyway, I did BEFORE and I claim there are next to no sources, this is a niche term with next to zero notability. Few uses are confused and don't define the concept, nor do they discuss it at any lenght. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  piotrus So what are you going to give me if I prove your statement wrong? If you can't click 'scholar' and see that there are plenty of uses of the word--which demonstrates that it is not a neologism--then we've got a problem here. The reason I didn't post a source analysis is that none is needed. The nomination does not argue that the word is non-notable, but that it's "a non-notable neologism that fails WP:NEO" and the bar for refuting that is far lower than proving the concept is actually notable. Allow me to quote, to save you a precious click: Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. This has RS usage; it is not a neologism. Now, if you want to re-nominate this article on a different basis, please do so, but I do not see the value of doing any more work than necessary to prove that the nomination basis is incorrect. Jclemens (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Scholar shows there are few passing mentions, with no attempt to define the subject, and that these mentions occur in more than one context. It is a neologism, with no universal definition. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "You may have not found sources, but I did - I'm keeping them to myself!" if you think that sounds ridiculous, I'm just paraphrasing your response. Suffice it to say it is nonsensical. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, Zxcvbnm the fact that you can't see enough sources to eviscerate your nomination rationale (see my above response to Piotrus) is not a failure on my part, but one of yours to understand the rationale upon which you're advocating deletion: clicking Google Scholar and seeing all those isolated mentions is all I need, or you need, to see that your WP:NEO rationale is in error. Copying a bunch of them into the AfD debate 1) isn't my job per WP:BEFORE, and 2) wouldn't help anyways because the issue appears to be one of you expecting more from the sourcing than policy actually requires. Jclemens (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As it states in WP:NEO, "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." This is what I meant in my rationale, which never attempted to claim that it was not widely used. However, it is not notable as a term either, a fact which has been confirmed by others. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A well-established and well-covered concept in fantasy fiction and gaming. Certainly not any sort of neologism. Easily satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Necrothesp: I will gladly withdraw my deletion nomination if I see WP:THREE reliable sources that discuss technomancy in significant detail. So far, none have been shown, just assertions that sources likely exist somewhere because people have heard of the word one day. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You do know that WP:THREE is just an essay and has no standing on Wikipedia? WP:GNG is the standard we use. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes it is "just an essay". Sometimes articles are contingent on a couple of sources, or even one source. However, these are usually very indepth and large. I do not see evidence of such, nor any source really. Just back and forth Wikilawyering about nonexistent sources that may exist somewhere. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Zxcvbnm,WP:NEO is part of WP:NOTDICT and not part of WP:N at all. Did you mean to raise a notability argument in the nomination? Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is NOT an well-estabilished term. It's a super niche, super rare term. If you want to prove me wrong, cite your sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While this article could use a lot of improvement, there are a number of sources which use and discuss the term, e.g. [24], [25], and [26]. The concepts appearing in those sources as "technomancy" are not identical, which is reflected in the differences between the sections of our article here. Daranios (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Daranios: I am not seeing much to salvage here, nor SIGCOV of this topic; worse, your last source that has a few sentences about this seems to discuss not literary genre but some pseudoscience? BUT Encyclopedia of Fantasy has an entry on technofantasy [27], which seems to be the a related concept. In either case, I checked several encyclopedias of sf and such and neither of these terms is used (well, outside technofantasy in EoF). As such, I am afraid I have to lean delete due to failure to estabilish WP:GNG and significant WP:OR. The discussed term "technomancy" doesn't seem to be either discussed or even defined anywhere, and that's a major strike. Do let me know if I missed a source which defines it and discusses it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Piotrus: Based on the the publisher and the the author, I had no reason to assume the third source to be pseudoscience. I don't claim to completely understand it, nor have I read the whole thing, but I still think this is a valid sociological examination of quasi-magical practices, and sees practitioners of technomancy as having some understanding of the world ("ability to read and represent the signs of time and nature"), but clad it in a magical guise appropriate to their time/culture. Daranios (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Daranios The point is, as TD noted below, is that the definition you found is about a different concept than the one discussed in the article. Maybe, just maybe, there is a notable concept of technomancy related to occult, but our article is about something else. As such, WP:TNT applies anyway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your first source says [...] beginning to blur the lines between technology as medium and techonology as magical tool. This theory of technomancy is a useful one to at least be aware of in your own occult research., the second source says we'll consider what would happen if God or his surrogate were all knowing but constrained to perform miracles by natural means. Borrowing from fantasy novelist Terry Pratchett, we'll call this kind of explanation "technomancy"., and the third source says Technomancy is a postmodern fusion of the art of schematisation and sympathetic picturisation (téchne) with the embodied craft of divination (manteía). A relevant technomancy of the world is fēng shui [...]). Those concepts are not just "not identical", they are fundamentally different concepts to the point of equivocation. Nor do they really correspond to the different sections in the article ("Theme", "Non-mystical technomancy", and "Non-scientific technology"). Those sources might make a case for a disambiguation page (if appropriate targets exist), but they don't make a case for keeping this article as it is currently constructed. The current state of the article is an WP:OR mess. What would you keep? TompaDompa (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Exactly. Three authors cited use the term in three differnet ways. It's a mess, clearly, nobody knows what this term is suppoed to mean, people use it as synonym for various other stuff. Only the third source tries to define it, and well, it treats it as a synonym of feng shui. Seriously, this is a mess. I can't even seriously suggest we make it into a disambig, as the cited uses are inconsistent and based on a single source. Note I've created an entry on technofantasy now, but it is not the same concept as the one discussed here, or in the sources cited. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that the term is used in different ways. I did not mean to say the three sources I picked as examples correspond to the three sections of our article, but rather that the article recognized that the term has been used differently. So if I come to Wikipedia to learn what the term means, I'd like to see an article that does explain the different variations out there. If this could be done by a disambiguation page, that would be fine with me, but I doubt that there are appropriate target pages - Non-scientific technology would correspond to Magitech, though. I did not have the time to thoroughly go through the numerous sources available (that's why it would be so helpful to learn what the nominator found out on individual sources in the required WP:BEFORE search before getting to their overall conclusion). [28] uses the term in the sense of Clarke's third law, so I would keep the paragraph surrounding that, with the sourced Technomages from Babylon 5 as a good example. Terry Pratchett: Titan of Technomancy confirms that the Non-scientific technology is one important part of what the author describes as Pratchett's technomancy. (Unfortunately I don't have access to p. 230.) The Shadowrun example should be double-checked and corrected or expanded with regard to the short definition in this secondary source, chapter 25.3. that the characteristicon of a technomancer is their "embodied magical ability to manipulate the ghost in the machine". Daranios (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Just so we understand each other, what would you say this article is about: the word "technomancy" (i.e. WP:WORDISSUBJECT) or the concept of technomancy? TompaDompa (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure. What I'd expect from a cleaned page was to explain that technomancy has been used to describe a, b, c, give the word origin, background on the concepts where available, examples where appropriate. Maybe not unlike the Minority article before it became a disambig page. Which would you say that is? Daranios (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, but surely you understand that's a major problem? The way to write an article about the word and an article about the concept are completely different. The sources that are necessary to write an article about the word and an article about the concept are completely different. How can you even tell if a source is relevant if you don't know if the article is (supposed to be) about the word or the concept? In order to write an article about the word, you need sources that discuss the word and how it's been used in different ways—not just sources that use it in different ways. In order to write an article about the concept, you need sources that discuss the concept—and they need to be discussing the same concept rather than different ones that happen to be described using the same word. What you're suggesting goes against WP:NOTDICT (In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by.) and WP:BROADCONCEPT—because it would be like writing an article about Mercury (element), Mercury (planet), Mercury (automobile), and Mercury (mythology) all in the same article. It should perhaps give you pause that the version of Minority you linked to is from 2006.

    For the record, the Technomancy article is (ostensibly) about the (or perhaps more accurately a) concept—the WP:LEAD says In science fiction and fantasy, technomancy, also called technomagic, is a category of magical abilities that affect technology or magical powers that are gained through the use of technology. Other senses of the word "technomancy" are consequently out of scope, and sources using the word to mean something else are off-topic. TompaDompa (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @TompaDompa Just a side note that you may want to actually vote... so far the votes are pretty unanimous and my reading of your comments is that you may not lean the same way as they do. But this discussion may be closed soon if all the closer sees are several bold keeps. NOTAVOTE, yes, but... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I had chosen the example of the old version of Minority to show that such a topic can grow from an imperfect article to a proper disambiguation page when enough material has been collected, as Wikipedia as a whole has grown. (Obviously Minority is a way more relevant concept than Technomancy, so no surprise in that issue having been solved long ago there but not yet here.) I am somewhat disappointed that the policies should forbid the kind of article I had described. Anyways, staying concept for the time being, if you are not offended by the current "or" in the lead, and are a bit generous, I think this (in contrast to the Mercury example) can still qualify as a "sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts" of WP:BROADCONCEPT under the following umbrella: Technomancy, also called technomagic, is a category of abilities to affect technology through magical or beyond-mundane means or magical powers that are gained through the use of technology. This fits the colloquial use of "surprising ability with technology", the Shadowrun example, the Clarke's third law examples, and (as far as I understand it) Tzanelli's defition, where understanding of nature is used to produce results in the guise of magic. If time permits I'll look for more soures to support the individual concepts below this broad one another time. Daranios (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem with that is that that definition is original to you, synthesized from disparate uses of of a term. You're engaging in WP:ANALYSIS, or in other words WP:Original research. Surely you understand that? TompaDompa (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Collecting more sources: A Worldbuilder's Guide to Magic, p. 57, has a good half-page with definition, examples and background on our primary defintion here. CBR. Gizmondo uses technomancy and techno-magic interchangeably for the example of Ravnica. Daranios (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The former does not speak of technomancy but technomagic, and CBR is a really low-quality source for this type of material. I think it's pretty clear that this does not rise to the level of coverage required by WP:GNG. Recall WP:WHYN: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. That being said, I have done you the courtesy of removing the unsourced and irrelevant material and adding a single-sentence WP:Dictionary definition based on the CBR source. If you think you can expand it to a full article based on the sources, feel free to do so. Otherwise, it might be a better idea to figure out some other article where this can be mentioned in a sentence or two (there does not seem to exist any list of types of magic, or else we could perhaps have redirected there). TompaDompa (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: The article is explicitely on technomancy and technomagic as synonyms. Oh, well, it was a moment ago. You will see that the definitions of the two sources match. I will continue to look for sources. As a preliminary opinion, if there were only those two, it would be fine in my view to merge that to, for lack of a better target, Magic in fiction. Then this should become a disambiguation page linking to that, Magitech, Wiktionary:Technomancy, Clarke's third law, and probably Wiktionary:Technomagic, to account for the various ways the term(s) have been used. Daranios (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And here it is: Tales of superhuman powers, p. 124, has another half page. It uses the broader definition which next to affecting technology supernaturally also includes "creating advanced technology" and "marvelous inventions". Daranios (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the idea that "technomancy" and "technomagic" are synonyms come from, exactly? Certainly not from the sources. These are, as Piotrus said above, extremely niche terms. I still don't see the coverage being sufficient for more than a basic WP:Dictionary definition, and in order to even write that we have to ignore the sources that define the word in a different way that does not conform to our preconceived notions of what it should mean. There's nothing to merge here. The Wiktionary entry is to my eye enough, which is no obstacle to deletion. The rest of the stuff you're proposing as part of a disambiguation page is on very shaky grounds, methinks. TompaDompa (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: I did not mean to "ignore the sources that define the word in a different way", but initally thought the variants should all be treated here, but I understood you told me we should focus on the separate concepts separately. Was I wrong? Based on the old lead, the editors knew or percieved that the two terms "technomancy" and "technomagic" are synonyms, so technomagic should certainly have been part of the WP:BEFORE search. You have suggested we should not focus on the word but the concept, right? I have concentrated my later search on the concept described in the old lead. I did not find a secondary source for this concept which spells out the two words being synonyms. But we have three source which use two different words and define the concept in different depths. Do you see those as describing different concepts? Do you think the definition used in the technomagic source does not conform to the old lead or your succint new lead? If so, how could we distinguish them properly, so that a hypothetical technomagic article would not be a WP:CONTENTFORK of our topic here? Otherwise I think all secondary sources on a topic should be counted towards notability. Daranios (talk) 11:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah, and Wiktionary:-mancy tells us that -magic and -mancy are synonyms in the field of fantasy. Daranios (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was trying to make by saying that in order to even write that we have to ignore the sources that define the word in a different way that does not conform to our preconceived notions of what it should mean was that if this had been an established term, we wouldn't have to go through so many "false positives" (for lack of a better term) to get the sources that use the term in the way we want them to. I realize that I probably could have been clearer on that. The old WP:LEAD was engaging in WP:Original research, which is really all there is to it. I have concentrated my later search on the concept described in the old lead.—that's the problem. When your starting point is original research, that's also where you end up. That you did not find a secondary source for this concept which spells out the two words being synonyms should probably tell you something about the viability of what you're doing. TompaDompa (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I still agree with TD, also, another meaning: https://shadowrun.fandom.com/wiki/Technomancer - that's another variant. If we allowed OR, that would be worth discussing. Sadly, we don't. Arguably, there is probably a RS sufficient to mention this term appears in the Shadowrun universe, just like another can be found for B5 (and I'll also throw in GURPS Technomancer), but again, we need RS for examples. All we have at the end are a bunch of definitions in various context. The source that was found [29] is arguably the best for the current context (in fiction), but one source is a bit below WP:GNG treshold. Still, it's something, and I'd constructively suggest to think if there is a merge/redirect target for the current one-sentence, single-reference definition. Perhaps the solution is to create the technology in science fiction article, based on [30]. Then we could merge and redirect that definition, even expand it from the source with examples cited. PS. Instead of a redirect, we also need to consider whether a disambig is not needed instead, given the occult uses? Bu a disambig to where, assuming one place would be the "tech in sf" article? Any thoughs what might be the occult target? Technopaganism, perhaps? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I don't think the Shadowrun example has another meanining, but rather fits quite well into the concept as defined in Tales of superhuman powers. Don't you think so? Daranios (talk) 11:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios It does, the problem is that saying so in the article may be ORish. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I disagree because WP:SKYISBLUE and such, but we don't need to quibble about that, as A Worldbuilder's Guide to Magic tells us that GURPS' Technomancer followed by Shadowrun falls into the category of technomagic (which is another indication that the two terms are used interchangeably). Daranios (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per my extensive rationale in comments above (TL;DR: this topic is not notable, sources found seem to be about a different meaning anyway, if not meanings, plural, neither of whic appears notable either). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My initial plan was to rewrite this article (because the current version is an WP:OR mess without proper sourcing) based on the sources found by Jclemens and Daranios, as I have done previously during deletion discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time viewer. However, after actually looking at the sources it became apparent that they are not about the topic of this article (magical abilities that affect technology or magical powers that are gained through the use of technology in fiction), but rather use the term "technomancy" to mean something completely different (and the sources use it in completely different ways from each other, too). Like Piotrus, I searched sources that I know to be useful for writing articles like this (e.g. science fiction encyclopaedias such as The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy) for this term without any success. The term "technomancy" (and for that matter "technomagic") does not appear in Brave New Words: The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction or the Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction. That tells me that this is not, contrary to assertions above, an established term in this sense. If anybody happens to find any sources that actually provide WP:Significant coverage of this topic, ping me and I'll reconsider. If the sources are sufficient for it, I'll rewrite the article myself. TompaDompa (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. After removing all the uncited content, we're left with a dicdef. Stifle (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Das Ich. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anti'christ[edit]

Anti'christ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources on page. Found this review from Exclaim! but nothing else. Redirect to the band's page. QuietHere (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Germany. QuietHere (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Notably, the German Wikipedia article has no sources either. BD2412 T 16:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Most of the albums that have been created by this band are not notable enough for wikipedia.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 05:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Nom Fifthapril (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Das Ich, as is common procedure for a non-notable album from a notable band. The title is a possible search term (with this punctuation, at least). The Exclaim review seems to be one of the few pieces of reliable media coverage ever received by one of this band's albums, and it helps a little but it's still rather slight. Nobody else seems to have noticed the album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Das Ich. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Das Ich. I do not see enough evidence of significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources to support this subject having a separate article, but I think a redirect is always more beneficial than outright deletion if a viable target article exists. Aoba47 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Das Ich. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cabaret (Das Ich album)[edit]

Cabaret (Das Ich album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neither source on page appears to be reliable. One is Discogs and the other is some webzine (per their about page with no apparent editorial oversight or anything else an RS needs. Found no additional coverage. Redirect to the band's page. QuietHere (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Germany. QuietHere (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Das Ich, as is common procedure for a non-notable album from a notable band. This one looks mostly like a fan trivia page, listing the contents of the various editions of the album. The album seems not to have attracted media notice in any of its forms. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Das Ich. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gurmail Singh (politician)[edit]

Gurmail Singh (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable politician, Fails both WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV.- TheWikiholic (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I couldn't find any significant coverage. The only coverage is because of his candidacy, and loss for the seat of member of parliament. Every candidate gets this type of coverage, nothing notable about it. Like the nominator says, subject fails notability criteria for politicians, and due lack of significant coverage, the subject fails general notability criteria as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NPOL as he didn't won any general election. Also this doesn't have WP: SIGCOV. The subject is district level president of a political party, which is not a major position.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 05:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sarpanch are the peoples who head the village and they are elected by village-level constitutional body so Sarpanch and district head of any party are not notable positions. He is also a candidate for Lok Sabha election which also doesn't establish notability for him. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk} ! 08:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As above and nom. Also, petition to start a new rule WP:SARPANCH (JK). User4edits (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neither local officeholders nor non-winning candidates for higher office are "inherently" notable for that per se, but this is sourced nowhere close to well enough to establish him as a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm for those things. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clique Brands[edit]

Clique Brands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are PR driven and press-releases. UPE. scope_creep^Talk 08:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Weak keep there is a decent write up here [31] and this is an interview but has a decent-ish lead [32]. With the rest given, I think it's ok. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the first source noted above in support of a weak keep is from the Los Angeles Business Journal and is an announcement of a capital transaction, such as raised capital: Powered Brands Gets Off to Strong Start With $276 Million IPO, and is largely based on "documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission", information "according to the company", "according to SEC filings", what "the company describes", "according to the company", "according to SEC filings", so does not provide sufficient WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORGIND to support notability, because it is essentially a press release. The second source cited is written by a WP:FORBESCON and is not a reliable source. In the article, the 2017 Fast Company source announces a name, brand and personnel change, based on a promotional interview, e.g. "says Katherine Power", "says Power", "Power says", "she says", so is also insufficient WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The 2015 Business Insider source is also mostly based on a promotional interview related to raised capital, e.g. "Power told Business Insider", "Power said", "Power said". Similary, the 2015 Techcrunch source is mostly quotes from Power related to the announcement of an acquisition, so it lacks WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The 2016 WWD source similarly announces a product based on statements by Power. The 2016 Instyle source is thinly-veiled advertisement for a book co-authored by Power and Kerr, which begins by noting a personal friendship (i.e. lack of independence) with Kerr. The 2016 Forbes article reports an acquisition and is based on "Power said", "Power noted", "Power expects" and promotes a Forbes podcast with Power speaking, so also lacks WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The remaining sources are similar or worse, including a blog, more interviews, and announcements of routine business transactions. A search for more sources finds more of the same. There appears to be insufficient WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND to support an article, and little to no support that is not WP:PROMO. Beccaynr (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Beccaynr's source analysis and reasoning. The article for one of it's brands Who What Wear should probably also be nominated for deletion as it has similar sourcing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and Beccaynr's thorough analysis. S0091 (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've sent Who What Wear to Afd. Seems to be a considerable consensus that it should go up Afd. I never included it in this, as thought they would be better consensus as independent Afd, but its now nominated. scope_creep^Talk 15:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Varsha Rittu Lakra[edit]

Varsha Rittu Lakra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR. Minor actress with no coverage of significance or role anywhere. Wareon (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She acted in around 10 films of which 3 are the notable film. Dev0745 (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not done any significant role in the listed notable films. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk} ! 08:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. In particular, user-generated websites are not reliable and cannot be used to bolster a claim to notability/GEOLAND. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stark, Arizona[edit]

Stark, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No improvement of an article on a non-notable rail spot. Ghosttowns.com claims it was a settlement and claims a store which is at variance with the place names book; passing references to people "from" the place do not turn it into a town. Post offices are routine features of train stations. Mangoe (talk) 06:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as per results of AfD of 2 years ago. Nothing has changed since then. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Two user-generated "ghost-town" websites call it a "settlement" and a "village". Two newspaper clippings, [33][34], support that people lived there. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V and WP:GEOLAND:

• To have an article on a populated place, we need to have a reliable source which says it's a populated place, per WP:V. This article cites GNIS (which is not reliable for this purpose) and "AZ Hometown Locator" (which just isn't reliable, and is probably just repeating data from GNIS or a similar database). The user-generated websites listed above are not reliable because they rely on user-generated data. Trying to infer the existence of a populated place from sources which don't say it's a populated place, such as a newspaper clipping which says someone is from there, is original research which isn't allowed here.
• WP:GEOLAND only gives near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places, populated places without legal recognition need to pass the GNG. We have no evidence of legal recognition and passing mentions and database entries aren't remotely enough for the GNG. Having a post office is not evidence of legal recognition, they could be in any old building.

Hut 8.5 12:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Things are not important just because some people used to live there. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The most extensive info in the ghost-town website even says it was a railstop at a ranch with a post office. Not enough evidence of an actual community. People lived on ranches. The newspaper listing are all legal notices regarding homesteading and are just passing mentions. As an WP:ATD, no objection to a redirect to Cochise County where it could be listed under ghosttowns (although not as a redlink). MB 18:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mass–energy–information equivalence[edit]

Mass–energy–information equivalence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fringe theorie. Have not secondary sources. Have not notability. Jim Hokins (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm not seeing any valid reason for deletion here. Just because a theory isn't widely accepted doesn't mean Wikipedia doesn't cover it, provided it's been covered in reliable sources. Even the vaguest WP:BEFORE work demonstrates that this is a theory which multiple academics have at least deemed worthy of consideration. ‑ Iridescent 08:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Firstly, far from fringe. Secondly plenty of academic discussion per Iridescent. Fermiboson (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing vote to Delete per XOReaster. Fermiboson (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Searches uncovered numerous sources with significant coverage. No reason for deletion. ProofRobust 09:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Good grief. This is run-of-the-mill fringe-physics fluff supported by a press release and "publications" in junk journals. (In physics, conference proceedings count for jack.) Nor does the Google Scholar search linked above provide anything better. I mean, it's down in the dregs of MDPI by the sixth hit. There are absolutely no grounds for keeping this. XOR'easter (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you elaborate on the physics? I'm not actually certain what's new about mass-energy-information equivalence; after all, mass energy equivalence is well established, and information is entropy, which because ${\displaystyle dS={\frac {dQ}{T))}$ is a source of heat, etc. Fermiboson (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There are multiple meanings of "entropy" (thermodynamic, Shannon, and von Neumann to name only the most familiar three), and multiple ways of defining a quantitative measure of information content (the major division being between probabilistic and algorithmic approaches). Carelessly equating these always leads to problems. Vopson actually claims that a "data storage device should be heavier when information is stored on it than when it is in fully erased state", based on (as far as I can tell) nothing more than careless equivocation.

  Let's say that our "data storage device" is a cylinder with a gas atom bouncing around inside. In the middle of the cylinder, we put a partition, as in the Szilárd engine; the atom can be either on the left or the right of the partition, so it takes 1 bit to specify which region is occupied. "Erasing" the device means ensuring that the atom is on a given side, say the left. (If we had a row of many such devices, we'd "erase" the message LLRRLRLLRRR... by setting it to LLLLLLLLLLL...) But the energy stored in the cylinder is the same whether the atom is on the left or the right, and it's the same whether we know whether the atom is on the left or the right. Any work we do on the cylinder, by pushing in a piston to squeeze the atom into a smaller region or whatever, bleeds back out into the environment. The internal energy of the single-atom gas is just the kinetic energy of that atom, and that is given by the temperature. As long as the device is at a fixed temperature, which all these thought-experiments presume, then the stored energy is constant. No change in energy, no change in mass.

  Vopson's original paper is full of strange moments, like saying that the energy needed to lift a weight off one side of a balance is ${\displaystyle kT\log 2}$ rather than, I don't know, anything to do with the weight. More importantly for Wikipedia's purposes, the citations to it include nothing worthwhile: MDPI journals, the quantized inertia guy, and Vopson citing himself. We don't even have grounds to write about this as a noteworthy weird idea. XOR'easter (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I see. On further inspection, changing vote to delete. Fermiboson (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The theory doesn't need to be correct, but criticized. Article satisfies General notability guidelines. Kirill C1 (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it doesn't. There is no reliably-published criticism, because there is almost no content to criticize. XOR'easter (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But you criticized it here. And there is publication in Journal of Physics: Conference Series. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Journal of Physics: Conference Series is not a reliable source. Outside of a few niche cases that don't apply here, conference proceedings in physics are basically unreviewed. And a discussion in a Wikipedia back-channel forum like this cannot contribute to notability. That's not how anything works. XOR'easter (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Outside of a few niche cases that don't apply here, conference proceedings in physics are basically unreviewed." I disagree that a conference Journal is not reliable source. It's not like any guy could come there and give a talk on something.

  "And a discussion in a Wikipedia back-channel forum like this cannot contribute to notability" I understand:) I mean that this fact proves that it can be criticized and analysed, which would give it notability. There is something to analyse there, even if it is not right. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Uh, that is literally the policy of physics conferences [35]. Anybody who has been to one of the big APS meetings will know about the session set aside for fringe types. And those are serious conferences — we haven't even addressed the fact that some supposed conferences are complete shams. Earlier this year, Journal of Physics: Conference Series had to retract a whopping 232 articles in one go for being bullshit [36]. Then, in September, they had to retract another 463 [37]. And no, an explanation of the basic physics that the paper fails to understand is not an indication that "there is something to analyze there". XOR'easter (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – “For over 60 years, we have been trying unsuccessfully to detect, isolate or understand the mysterious dark matter,” said Vopson. “If information indeed has mass, a digital informational universe would contain a lot of it, and perhaps this missing dark matter could be information.” This statement alone brands Vopson as a crackpot, since the mass due to the heat energy (which is related to the the entropy) is already accounted for in the physics. Suggesting that dark matter, which is taken to have many times the expected mass of each galaxy, is somehow hiddenly added is very much not something that should be taken seriously. The stated "equivalence" via entropy is also temperature-dependent; it is like saying that velocity and momentum are equivalent (if you don't find the mass-dependence bothersome). —Quondum 20:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That quote is hilarious; great find. :-) XOR'easter (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Information is negative entropy. It cannot be related to energy without specifying a temperature. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. just vapid fringe ramblings. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  There are articles on fringe theories in Wikipedia, too. Kirill C1 (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Articles are only retained if notability for the topic has been established. The fringeness in itself is not a criterion, though it usually serves to prevent the topic achieving notability. —Quondum 15:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sometimes it does, But here are plenty of sources: [38] [39] [40] [41] Kirill C1 (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These source are tabloid junk. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

The very first is a website called "Giant Freakin Robot" that says Vopson is crowdfunding for an experiment to prove that we are living inside a simulation. That's the kind of "source" I would invent as a joke. XOR'easter (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• We have had this kind of argument before. When a crackpot manages to get a bunch of science-illiterate popular science rags to publish something about their theory, this does not establish notability. The "quantized inertia guy" mentioned above even had a DARPA grant that made the news and was arguably more notable than this, but that got deleted as an article. Rather argue that it should be included as a mention in some article listing fringe science examples. —Quondum 21:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per XOR'easter mostly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per XOReaster's rationale.--Srleffler (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Notability is necessary (for example, to prevent people from cluttering the encyclopedia with articles about their favorite cat videos), but it is not sufficient. Articles which are false, misleading, incoherent nonsense, or otherwise immoral should also be excluded. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia content may cause protest from readers. Then we should write about this as incoherent theory. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @JRSpriggs, the idea that "notability is not sufficient" or that we don't host "immoral" articles is categorically untrue; provided the article is neutral and correctly sourced, notability is our only criterion for inclusion. We currently host upwards of a thousand articles on crank theories; if it's a fringe theory and sourceable, it goes in, along with a sourced statement that it's a fringe theory. ‑ Iridescent 19:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And this isn't sourceable. XOR'easter (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have found the book Физика (Третья) 21 века. Том 1 in Russian -"Physics (Third) of XXI century", page 120 (2022) by Valeriy Asadov. It is written there "Other researches extrapolated physical nature of information for evaluating information mass, the culmination of this being the recent publication of "Mass–energy–information equivalence... These radical theories" - so the theory may be criticized, but it seems that it has some notability and influence. I found a mention in book "Cheating the Ferryman: The Revolutionary Science of Life" by Anthony Peake. "further, arguing that, once created, information has 'finite and quantifiable mass'. His mass-energy-information equivalence theory calculates that the mass of one bit of information at room temperature of 26.85°C is 3.19 × 10–38 kg. ... Information is the fifth state of matter"The idea and theory may be bizarre, but if it causes debate, then we should write about it. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Cheating the Ferryman claims to bring together ideas from ancient philosophy, neuroscience, quantum physics and consciousness studies, and manages to explain a number of seemingly mysterious experiences such as precognition, déjà vu, synchronicity, near-death experiences and out-of-body experiences. Yeah, no, that's not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. The other book you mention purports to solve the problem of dark matter by saying that the Universe is 291,604,086,700 years old. Let's not pretend that's a reliable source, either. XOR'easter (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Admiral of the Fleet (Sri Lanka)[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) An anonymous username, not my real name 06:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral of the Fleet (Sri Lanka) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Creator has a history of making unsourced/poorly sourced articles, which this most definitely is. The fact that they self-tagged their own creation as possibly not meeting notability guidelines makes me suspect a troll. The topic is of highly dubious notability overall. An anonymous username, not my real name 05:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the tag has now been removed. My other points still stand. An anonymous username, not my real name 06:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if you could explain as to why the topic is of highly dubious notability. The Sri Lanka (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initially it appeared that no sources discussed the role itself, only the bearer. However, it seems I did not look hard enough. Closing. An anonymous username, not my real name 06:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. This is a very high profile role. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I made an error. An anonymous username, not my real name 06:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Birefringence#Uniaxial materials. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uniaxial crystal[edit]

Uniaxial crystal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Much more detailed coverage of the same thing already at Birefringence#uniaxial_materials Fermiboson (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why not merge? Dawkin Verbier (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment better suited for a merge discussion.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is nothing to merge. Everything that is in this article is already in the section. Fermiboson (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So redirect it. If it's duplicative, just redirect it WP:BLAR and WP:BRD. Reywas92^Talk 14:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I’ll let this run its course; if it gets deleted, I’ll request a redirect. Fermiboson (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Birefringence#Uniaxial materials – poorly written; has no content not at the destination so need to merge any of it. I don't see why an AfD can't be closed as a redirect. —Quondum 19:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Agree with above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• Redirect is the solution indeed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UXB (band)[edit]

UXB (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable punk band. --Viennese Waltz 09:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Shellwood (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing on this band, there's a publisher called UXB. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Academy (Philippines)[edit]

Faith Academy (Philippines) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines Shwcz (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Far Eastern University Roosevelt[edit]

Far Eastern University Roosevelt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines Shwcz (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.